Tag Archives: arizona

Russian Media Ridicules US Counterparts for Ignoring Arizona Sheriff’s Evidence Obamas Birth Certificate is a forgery

Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged

By Dianna Cotter

A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation.

A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio’s credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.

Yet, in the five days since his revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.

On April 27, 2011, President Barack walked into the White House Press room with a Cheshire cat like grin and a “Long Form Birth Certificate” from the State of Hawaii in hand. From the podium in the press room, Mr. Obama said, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers,”. Quite the barb from a man holding a forged document.

That’s right, forged.

The president himself created the scene; one filled laughter from an adoring press corp., a scene of unprecedented fanfare while holding a forged document which was later posted on the White House website. This was the news Sheriff Arpaio revealed on March 1, 2012 in Arizona.

Arpaio asserts that his investigators discovered, during a 6 month long investigation which is ongoing, not only was the “Long Form” likely a digitally created forgery, but the presidents Selective Service Card (Draft Card), allegedly filed in 1980, was also a forgery. These documents are what Barack Hussein Obama relies upon to prove his constitutional eligibility to the office of President of the United States.

Forged documents are being used to qualify a President of the United States for the office he holds. Or is usurped the more accurate term?

The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal? The press in Arpaio’s audience were certainly asking him to state precisely that, yet nowhere has the question been asked of the White House by the press. Instead the American Press is aggressively protecting the presumed President of the United States, pushing the fraud upon both America and the world, supporting a man who may well have usurped the office.

For months before Mr. Obama released the April 2011 forgery, American businessman Donald Trump had been demanding that the president show the country definitive proof that he was born in the state of Hawaii, and eligible for the Office of President. The birth certificate forgery which was presented by Mr. Obama was in response to the repeated public requests from the billionaire businessman.

One can easily imagine the reaction of the press had this scenario been about George W. Bush in 2004.

On the contrary, the press itself forged documents regarding the 43rd President: Long term CBS newsman Dan Rather lost his credibility along with his job when he presented forged Air National Guard documents allegedly denigrating the president’s service in the 1970’s. One can imagine the glee evidence presented by law enforcement officials of a real forgery made by President Bush would have generated. The press feeding frenzy would have eclipsed that of Watergate, the most controversial political event in modern America history which led to the resignation of President Nixon in August of 1974.

The questions in the White House Press room would have been merciless to say the very least.

What has been the response from the Obama era press?

Silence.

Silence so loud it can be felt.

What has been the response from the 44th president so far?

A tweet from Obama Campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt, containing a link to the conspiracy theory television show “The X-files” theme song: a mocking, Saul Alinsky like, retort.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors appear to have been committed by the President of the United States or his personal representatives in presenting a forged document to the press and the Nation as a legitimate document, and this information has been delivered from Law Enforcement Officials.

Arpaio refused to take the bait offered by a clearly hostile press in the conference room. He refused to accuse the president directly, instead informing the world that they had a “person of interest” in the forgery, and were continuing with the investigation.

Where is the outrage from the press??

As surreal as this is, it isn’t the main event. It’s only a part of a larger story.

Years before the 2008 election, Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution to allowthose who were born to parents who were not citizens to become President along with those born overseas. Those efforts have occurred several times in recent history, and all have failed. It must be intelligently asked why this was a concern at all for the then Senator.

There are two reasons for Obama’s concern. The first lay in Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which states: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,”.

Except for Barack Obama.

The second reason for Obama’s concern lies in the Supreme Court of the United States case Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) 1875 which defines Natural Born Citizen:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

This U.S. Supreme Court case decided that Virginia Minor, the plaintiff, could not use the 14th Amendment to claim citizenship and the right to vote because she was a Natural Born Citizen, and therefor unable to lay claim to the statutory citizenship the 14th Amendment gave to former slaves, which included their right to vote. This is the only U.S. Supreme Court case in the history of the United States to clearly define what a Natural Born Citizen is. It has been cited in dozens of cases since.

This is an issue which cannot be brushed aside by Mr. Obama. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was a student from the British Commonwealth of Kenya, a British Citizen who never sought to become a US Citizen, and indeed was eventually forced to leave the country. Mr. Obama has only one parent who was an American Citizen. Obama clearly does not meet the requirements of Natural Born Citizen as defined by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett.

The Founding Fathers, the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, discussed these very reasons why no person of divided loyalties, divided nationalities, should ever have command of America’s armed forces. Dozens of letters and many debates in the constitutional conventions recorded these concerns, always returning the “Law of Nations”, Emerich De Vattel’s encyclopedic record of the laws civilized nations had developed over two thousand years of which the founders were clearly aware of in their debates:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

E. De Vattel 1758 Sec 212 Ch19

Vattel’s definition has been accepted since the days the United States was still a motley collection of British Colonies. It has been accepted in no less that 3 Supreme Court Cases, has been accepted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives. It is by no means an original source; only recently dug out of dusty tomes in 2008. Indeed, this concept is enshrined in every Nation the world over. Every nation not only accepts, but has enshrined this concept: a person born to two parents who were citizens of that nation and born on its soil was a natural born citizen of that nation.

After his rousing 2004 speech at the Democrat National Convention, Barack Obama was considered a shoe-in for running for president in 2008, and indeed his campaign began that night in Boston. Yet his citizenship was a serious obstacle to his ambitions, and the ambitions of the liberal progressive movement which supported him.

So the efforts to obfuscate Obama’s citizenship issues began in earnest. The plan was deviously simple, make certain that people focused on his Hawaiian documents, and minimize the visibility of Minor V. Happersett and Citizenship to the public.

The State of Hawaii

The state of Hawaii’s role in this cannot be neglected for several reasons. Hawaii has a couple of legal Achilles heels of its own.

It was well known at the time, that any person could register the birth of a child in the state on a late form with only the signature of a witness (Hawaii Department of Health no longer uses this form). This means of obtaining Hawaiian documents was used frequently by immigrants who needed assistance from the state (such as welfare), and Hawaii needed the federal dollars registering those births brought to the state. Second, and perhaps most importantly, Federal laws with regard to Hawaii had been written to allow a baby receiving state documents to be declared a Citizen of the United States without being subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States:

Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] Persons born in Hawaii:

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

Missing from this US Statute is the following which appears in the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This disparity created a legal loophole which is specific to Hawaii: A child born in Hawaii, regardless of whether or not they were born in the state and subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, automatically gained US Citizenship. This is the only state in the United States where this condition existed. This is why Hawaii is so vitally important to Obama, and could explain why it is important enough to forge birth documents for. It is why Obama’s birth is being alleged to have occurred there instead of somewhere like Washington State or elsewhere, and is so vitally important.

Obama, by being born in Hawaii, got automatic citizenship status in the United States without regard for whether the United States had jurisdiction over his citizenship. Otherwise, his citizenship would have legally followed his father’s, British, as Barack himself admitted on his “Fight the Smears” website during the ’08 campaign.

And it only took a witness signature to gain it. It is unknown how many children gained U.S. citizenship through this means. The real citizenship status of these individuals is similarly unknown, and now that it has been discovered that Barack Obama has put forth a forged Hawaiian Birth certificate, his own proof of birth in the state is subject to serious questions by law enforcement officials.

Months before the election of 2008 Barack Obama began deliberately directing public attention to his Hawaiian Records. The Obama campaign, before redirecting the site to “Attack Watch” maintained the “Fight the Smears” website which can still be found on archival websites. The Obama campaign posted the candidate’s “short Form” birth certificate with the following information from FactCheck.com:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

The campaign obviously wanted public attention directed at his birth documents in Hawaii.

The campaign itself created the entire birth certificate controversy, and acted to maintain and fan the flames of that controversy for several truly simple reasons. As long as the public was wondering about what being born under “the British Nationality Act of 1948” meant, and the birth certificate “birther” controversy in general, they were not looking into laws which would have legally prevented the senator from assuming the role of candidate and then President. Legal cases such as Minor V. Happersett.

This case was, and still is, of tremendous import. Had it been found during the campaign it would have prevented his candidacy, certainly preventing him from taking the oath of office in Jan 2009.

So a campaign to hide Minor V. Happersett was undertaken at the same time.

Justia

Justia.com is a free legal internet research site with a specific, dedicated Supreme Court of the United States server containing nearly every Supreme Court case in American history. It is specifically marketed to law students, non-profit agencies, startup businesses, small businesses and private internet researchers. In short, those who cannot afford either a lawyer or the thousands of dollars a year required by subscription legal search engines such as LexisNexis and WestLaw. Justia leverages the Google Mini internal search engine, and through this, Google.com itself increasing its visibility on nearly any search of American law. Justia.com is owned by Obama supporter Tim Stanley, and began a systematic scrubbing of Minor V. Happersett in the summer of 2008, erasing the name and specific text quoted from the case, along with specific citations to it out of dozens of Supreme Court cases which cited it over 138 years of American Supreme Court History. The controversy was dubbed “JustiaGate”.

The author of this article personally documented and published the scrubbing done by Justia, documented the failure of Tim Stanley’s explanation for the “errors”, and assisted in the research which connected Justia.com to Public.Resource.Org, where Stanley is on the board of directors. Public.Resource.org is the source of Supreme Court materials in data form Justia.com receives for publication. Public.Resource.org is owned and run by Carl Malamud, and funded in part by the Center for American Progress once run by John Podesta, and funded by George Soros. This is a direct connection to the Soros Foundation, a major source of political donations to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

Justia erased “Minor v. Happersett” along with text quoted from the case out of its Supreme Court servers deliberately in an effort to minimize the ability of the public to find the case by searching for it, significantly reducing its apparent importance.

These two separate efforts, raising the profile of the Senator’s birth certificate in as controversial a manner as possible, while minimizing the legal role of Minor v. Happersett succeeded. Barack Obama was able to illegally win the election, and illegally take office. It was stolen right in front of the American public.

The house of cards is about to come tumbling down around Barack Obama’s ears as the momentum of evidence builds. Law enforcement has found his birth documents to be “highly suspect” as a forgery. His draft card has similarly been found by law enforcement as being “highly suspect” as a forgery. The smoke screen cover created by his birth certificate, hiding Minor v. Happersett in a shadow of false mockery, has been blown away. Leaving the Supreme Court case alone on the stage, glaringly exposing Barack Obama as an usurper, an unconstitutional President of the United States.

The American Press is deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about this defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. It is hiding Barack Obama’s Fraud as it has been revealed by a Sheriff in Arizona. The silence of the American press would be unbelievable if it weren’t so blatantly obvious.

It is nearly as egregious as the audacity of Obama’s fraud itself.

Dianna Cotter is a Senior at American Military University, a 4.0 Student, the recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement. She has published at Examiner.com, in American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, and Family Security Matters.

SOURCE

Sheriff Joe sets D-Day on Obama’s eligibility

Sheriff Joe sets D-Day on Obama’s eligibility

Arpaio won’t release any of Cold-Case Posse’s conclusions in advance
by Jerome R. CorsiEmail

Following a Georgia judge’s ruling that Barack Obama is eligible to be on the state’s 2012 Democratic Party presidential ballot, the front lines in the continuing eligibility battle are being fought in Arizona.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told WND today his office has scheduled a news conference in Phoenix for March 1 to release findings of the Cold Case Posse that has been investigating Barack Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility to be president.
Ads by Google

Low Cost Health InsuranceBlue Cross, Aetna, Kaiser, CIGNA & More! Compare Plans & View Rates. www.GoHealthInsurance.com
DeVry UniversityRequest a Review of Financial Aid Options at DeVry University. www.DeVry.edu

Arpaio declined to release to WND any of the posse’s conclusions in advance of the press conference, although he is on record saying the findings may be “shocking” to many.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

In a separate matter, Arpaio told WND that a group of Department of Justice officials from Washington, D.C., began meeting with officials of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office regarding the DOJ’s allegation of systematic violations of the federal civil rights of Hispanics.

If the negotiations fail, the DOJ has threatened to take Arpaio and the MCSO to federal court, setting up an epic political battle just as Arpaio prepares to issue the results of the Cold Case Posse’s investigation.

Arpaio investigating Obama since September

Arpaio’s decision to investigate Obama follows a meeting held in his office Aug. 17 with tea party representatives from Surprise, Ariz., who presented a petition signed by more than 250 Maricopa County residents. The petitioners expressed concern that their voting rights could be irreparably compromised if Obama uses a forged birth certificate to be placed on the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona or otherwise is found to be ineligible.

WND previously reported that the tea party letter formally stated the following charge: “The Surprise Tea Party is concerned that no law enforcement agency or other duly constituted government agency has conducted an investigation into the Obama birth certificate to determine if it is in fact an authentic copy of 1961 birth records on file for Barack Obama at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu, or whether it, or they are forgeries.”

The posse, constituted under the authority of Arpaio’s office, consists of three former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys with law enforcement experience. It has been examining evidence since September concerning Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The Cold Case Posse conducting the investigation has been described as a “posse within the posse,” consisting of volunteers with professional experience in conducting investigations. It includes individuals chosen because of their professional backgrounds in law enforcement, lawyers who have participated in criminal or civil cases and individuals with specialized skills in fields ranging from accounting to conducting criminal forensic examination.

The posse was constituted as a 501(c)3 organization, designed to cost the people of Maricopa County nothing, while enabling people from around the country to contribute to its mission.

In total, more than 3,000 volunteers participate in Arpaio’s posse program. The power to constitute posses is authorized to Arizona sheriffs under the state constitution.

Showdown in Arizona

Arpaio and the Department of Justice are at loggerheads over whether the DOJ needs to provide proof of allegations that the MCSO is guilty of systematic violations of the federal civil rights of Hispanics.

“Prove it!” Arpaio challenged the DOJ in an exclusive interview with WND. “If Eric Holder has evidence that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has engaged in systematic violations of the civil rights of Hispanic, then show me the evidence.”

Arpaio has contended that the 22-page complaint the DOJ released Dec. 15 is nothing more than anecdotal and did not prove systematic sheriff’s department policies aimed at depriving Hispanics of their civil rights.

Nor was Arpaio concerned that the DOJ might take him and his sheriff’s office to federal court immediately, as it has threatened.

“If the Justice Department wants to take me to court, I’m ready,” Arpaio said.

The sheriff said that if the DOJ “wants to debate the facts instead of fixing the problems stated in our findings, we will do so by way of litigation.”

Those wishing to send a tax-deductible contribution directly to the Cold Case Posse may do so by mailing a check or money order to: MCSO Cold Case Posse, P.O. Box 74374, Phoenix, AZ 85087.SOURCE

Improving Mexican economy draws Illegals Home

Improving Mexican economy draws undocumented immigrants home from California

Custom Search

By Stephen Magagnini
[email protected]

There are fewer undocumented immigrants in California – and the Sacramento region – because many are now finding the American dream south of the border.

“It’s now easier to buy homes on credit, find a job and access higher education in Mexico,”
Sacramento’s Mexican consul general, Carlos González Gutiérrez, said Wednesday. “We have become a middle-class country.”

Mexico’s unemployment rate is now 4.9 percent, compared with 9.4 percent joblessness in the United States.

An estimated 300,000 undocumented immigrants have left California since 2008, though the remaining 2.6 million still make up 7 percent of the population and 9 percent of the labor force, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Among metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents, Sacramento County ranks among the lowest, with an unauthorized population of 4.6 percent of its 1.4 million residents in 2008, according to Laura Hill, a demographer with the PPIC.

The Sacramento region, suffering from 12.3 percent unemployment and the construction bust, may have triggered a large exodus of undocumented immigrants, González Gutiérrez said.

The best-paid jobs for undocumented migrants are in the building industry, “and because of the severe crisis in the construction business here, their first response has been to move into the service industry,” González Gutiérrez said. “But that has its limits. Then, they move to other areas in the U.S. to find better jobs – or back to Mexico.”

Hill said it’s hard to know whether the benefit of having fewer undocumented migrants outweighs the cost to employers and taxpayers.

California may have to provide less free education to the children of undocumented immigrants and less emergency medical care, she said, but it will also get less tax revenue.

In 2008, at least 836,100 undocumented immigrants filed U.S. tax returns in California using individual tax identification numbers known as ITINS, said Hill, who conducted the tax survey.

Based on those tax returns, the study found there were 65,000 undocumented immigrants in Sacramento County that year, far fewer than in many other big counties.

Sacramento’s undocumented population ranked 10th in the state that year, behind Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Clara, San Bernardino, Riverside, Alameda, Contra Costa and Ventura.

There were an estimated 12,000 undocumented immigrants in Yolo County; 9,000 in the Sutter-Yuba area; and 8,000 in Placer County.

An analysis of local ZIP codes showed that Sacramento (95815, 95823, 95824), West Sacramento (95605), Clarksburg (95612), Esparto (95627), Guinda (95637), Knights Landing (95645), Winters (95694) and Woodland (95776) each had an undocumented population of 10 percent to 15 percent.

Yolo County relies heavily on migrant workers to grow and harvest crops.

“People in construction are now turning to agriculture; it’s the start of the tomato season so the harvesters will be jump-started pretty soon,”
said Woodland Mayor Art Pimentel, whose 55,000 residents are 48 percent Latino, some of them undocumented.

Some aren’t sticking around for the upcoming tomato harvest, said Sylvina Frausto, secretary of Holy Rosary Church in Woodland. “Some have a small parcel in Mexico. They own their own home there, so instead of renting here they go back to their small business there.”

Many raise animals, run grocery stores or sell fruits and goods on street corners.

“They’re going back home because they can’t get medical help or government assistance anymore,
” Frausto said, “And when it’s getting so difficult for them to find a job without proper documentation, it’s pushing them away.”


Anita Barnes, director of La Familia Counseling Center on Franklin Boulevard in Sacramento, said she recently spoke to a high school graduate who had lost his job in a restaurant and was thinking of going back to Mexico.

“He came over with his mom, who was in the process of losing her restaurant job,” Barnes said. “It’s frightening, especially for the children. They feel this is their country, they don’t know anything else, and they find they can’t get driver’s licenses or jobs.”

As its economy rebounds, Mexico “is becoming a better option than it was in the past, but you still have to find a job and reconnect,” Barnes said.

While the weakened U.S. economy, rising deportations and tougher border enforcement have led to fewer undocumented migrants, changes in Mexico are playing a significant role, González Gutiérrez said.

Mexico’s average standard of living – including health, education and per capita income – is now higher than those in Russia, China and India, according to the United Nations.

Mexico’s growing middle class “reduces the appetites to come because there are simply many more options” at home, González Gutiérrez said. “Most people who decided to migrate already have a job in Mexico and tend to be the most ambitious and attracted to the income gap between the U.S. and Mexico.

Mexico’s economy is growing at 4 percent to 5 percent, benefiting from low inflation, exports and a strong banking system, the consul said.

Mexico’s birthrate is also declining sharply. “As a natural consequence of us transforming from a rural to an urban society, we are running out of Mexicans to export,” González Gutiérrez said. “Our society’s growing at a rate of 2.1 children per woman – in the 1970s it was more than five.”

Once the U.S. economy recovers, the flow of migrants moving north “may go up again, although most likely they will not reach the peak levels we saw in the first half of the decade,” González Gutiérrez said.

Read more:SOURCE

Splitting AZ: Support grows for 51st state


Splitting AZ: Support grows for 51st state


Posted: Feb 24, 2011 7:43 PM EST Updated: Feb 25, 2011 4:00 PM EST
By Jessica Chapin, Reporter –

Splitting AZ; Support is growing for 51st state

“Start Our State” co-founders Paul Eckerstrom and Peter Hormel want Southern Arizona to break away and become the 51st state “Start Our State” co-founders Paul Eckerstrom and Peter Hormel want Southern Arizona to break away and become the 51st state
Hormel says with Pima County’s size and population, they could pull it off Hormel says with Pima County’s size and population, they could pull it off
State Senator Vic Williams, who represents Northwest Pima County, says they have bigger priorities State Senator Vic Williams, who represents Northwest Pima County, says they have bigger priorities
Pima County Board of Supervisors Chair Richard Elias says “Start Our State” is sending a message that’s been a long time coming Pima County Board of Supervisors Chair Richard Elias says “Start Our State” is sending a message that’s been a long time coming

TUCSON (KGUN9- TV) – One group is so fed up with Arizona politics they want to break away and form a brand new state. “Start Our State,” a new Pima County political committee, hopes to bring the initiative to voters in 2012.

Co-founders Peter Hormel and Paul Eckerstrom say the governor’s Federal lawsuit over immigration and new bills proposing to nullify Federal law are what sent their opinions over the edge.

“I and some other people finally got so frustrated with what’s happening in Phoenix that we felt obligated to do something about it,” said Hormel. “It’s an idea that I think once you take a step back and think about it, it starts to make more and more sense.”

He says with Pima County’s size and population, they could pull it off. Pima County has more square miles than New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island. It has more people than Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware and Alaska.

When asked about the financial feasibility, Hormel responded, “We certainly can’t do any worse than they’re doing now.”

He’s not alone in his thinking. Thursday, State Sen. Paula Aboud (D-28) proposed an amendment to SB 1433, which would enable the state to nullify certain Federal laws.

Today, I am offering an amendment to SB 1433 to propose that Pima County secede from the rest of the State,” she said on the floor. “We do not advocate their brand on our state and we don’t support their harmful legislation that continues to tarnish Arizona’s reputation.

The Senate voted no on the amendment, but passed the bill.

In response, several state legislators came out to support the proposed secession.



“The State of Baja Arizona proposal should get careful investigation and consideration at all levels,
” said Rep. Daniel Patterson (D-29). “Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Graham, Greenlee and Yuma Counties could make a nice new western state, with Tucson as the capital city.”

Not every Pima County-based law-maker agrees.

“I am a proud Arizonan who will not support creating a 51st state out of Southern Arizona,” said Rep. Bruce Wheeler (D-28)

Sen. Vic Williams (R-26) says the Northwest portion of the county has bigger priorities.

“I know that they’re going to come around,”
he said about central Tucson. “They’re going to see things our way and help work on the Governor’s job package for our greater prosperity here in Arizona.”

As for the county leaders who may stand to gain a political advantage with statehood, Board of Supervisors Chair Richard Elias says it’s a message, in the least, that’s been a long time coming.

“In many cases we feel like we’re being singled out and attacked on a regular basis by an extremist group of legislators,
” he said. “I’m quite proud to be a citizen of the United States of America and I would be proud to see our new state to be more accepting of the laws of the United States as they stand today.”

Details like potential names, slogans or flag logos have not yet been decided. Hormel says they must first put together a petition to put the motion on a ballot, and they’d leave details up to voters, provided it passes. Elias, however, did have a suggestion.

“I think we should be Arizona and I think all those people who have come here and moved to Maricopa County, they should figure out a new name for themselves because we’re the real Arizona,” he said.

The path to statehood would be long and arduous, even if the measure made it to the ballot and passed. The secession would need approval from state voters, a new constitution, and a final vote of approval from U.S. Congress and the president.
Comments

http://www.kgun9.com/story/14137897/pima-county-group-fed-up-starting-a-movement-to-start-a-new-state?redirected=true

Immigration Debate: More States look at Arizona Styled Laws

Undocumented nannies, housekeepers or lawn caretakers in the state of Texas can perhaps breathe easier about deportation. While new legislation in the Texas House of Representatives would make it a state crime to hire undocumented workers, it excludes those employed in single-family households — in other words, them.

The bill, introduced by state GOP Rep. Debbie Riddle, is the first of its kind in the country. It’s unique in that while it appeases those who want more stringent immigration laws, it doesn’t subject Texas households to the rule that would mainly apply to businesses and large employers.
Bluehost Web Hosting $6.95

Critics of the bill say it’s hypocritical. Supporters charge it’s needed in a state where the Hispanic population continues to climb swiftly.

Though it remains stuck in political limbo, the bill reflects a wider push toward implementing tougher anti-immigration laws at the state level. More than 100 immigration-related bills are pending in the Texas legislature alone, including those that would give state and local police officers the authority to enforce federal immigration laws, make English the official language and prevent undocumented students from getting in-state tuition and scholarships.

States across the country, including Georgia and Oklahoma, where the legislatures debated immigration bills this week, have been mulling controversial Arizona-style immigration laws.Thirty-seven states are considering tougher immigration bills, with multiple bills pending in some states.

“The mere fact that Arizona law has sprung up in over 24 other states within a few months of passage, I believe, is historic,” said William Gheen, president and spokesman of Americans for Legal Immigration, a group that supports stricter immigration laws.

“We are going to pass more immigration enforcement legislation in the states in 2011 than any year prior. And what we don’t get done in 2011 we will get done in 2012,” he vowed.

States enacted a record number of bills and resolutions on immigration issues during the 2010 sessions, and every state that met in regular session in 2010 considered laws related to immigrants, according to a National Conference of State Legislatures report. Forty-six state legislatures and the District of Columbia passed 208 laws and adopted 138 resolutions for a total of 346.

The momentum, in part, is being driven by the ascent of Republicans in state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives. Many GOP leaders, especially in Southern and Midwestern states, made immigration a flagship issue of their campaigns.

Critics of tougher laws say these newly minted legislators are unfairly targeting immigrants when they should instead be focused on the economy, the No. 1 priority for most Americans.

“I think that you have extremists who have taken over statehouses and governors’ officers across the country,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of National Immigration Forum. “Rather than fixing the economy and reducing budget deficits, they have chosen to scapegoat immigrants. It’s the classic bait and switch, and this time, the immigrant community is the bait.”

?

Immigration Heats Up at State Level

Republicans say they are taking on this issue because of inaction on the federal government’s part.

“States are responding to their citizens, and it’s resulting in unnecessary expenditure; it’s resulting in some social conflict,” said Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, who represents a district that’s 90 percent Hispanic. “It’s very frustrating that we have to be wasting our energy on this when it’s not our job.”

Efforts to enact a comprehensive immigration reform package failed in the previous Congress, and with the economy and jobs at the forefront, this Congress is unlikely to take up the issue.

A Pew Research Center priorities survey in January found that dealing with illegal immigration is a middle-tier public concern. About half, 46 percent of Americans, said it was a top policy priority, placing it far behind the economy, jobs and a number of other issues.

In a joint press conference with Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon, President Obama said Thursday that he remained “deeply committed to fixing our broken immigration system,” and that he was “eager” to work with Republicans and Democrats “to get this reform done.” But the president did not provide a timeline.

The federal government is embroiled in a bitter legal battle with the state of Arizona over its contentious law. But nonpartisan polls show that a majority of Americans support it. Roughly six in 10 Americans, or 61 percent, approve of the law, according to the latest national survey conducted by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in early February.

Of those polled, 42 percent said the priority should be to tighten border security and more strictly enforce immigration laws, but at the same time also create a way for undocumented residents to become citizens if they meet certain conditions.

While economy may be at the top of Americans’ minds, that’s not stopping states from moving ahead with vigorous immigration laws.

The Utah House passed a bill that would require law enforcement to detain anyone for a misdemeanor or felony if he or she cannot prove citizenship or legal status.

In Alabama, legislators are set to vote on a bill that would make undocumented residents guilty of trespassing, a crime punishable by up to a year in prison.

South Carolina is considering an Arizona-style measure that would give law enforcement the authority to check people’s immigration status.

Nebraska, Kansas and North Carolina are looking into similar bills.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration-wars-texas-georgia-oklahoma-arizona-style-laws/story?id=13050716&page=2